What? No government shutdown threads?

[Texashiker]

You're just flailing now. You told me the founding fathers thought we should run a country without debt. I've shown you that wasn't the case, they had varying opinions on it.

You have posted no source to backup your claim that we should have unlimited debt.

James Madison - I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse.

Jefferson and his followers opposed Hamilton every step of the way because they understood that Hamilton’s agenda was totally destructive of liberty. - http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/10/thomas-dilorenzo/hamiltons-curse/

Public debt is a curse and destructive of liberty. But for some reason you wish to abolish the debt limit?

 

[jackstar7]

Every tax dollar you, your children, and your grandchildren will ever pay into the system has already been spent.

When are we going to stop enslaving future generations with debt?

Wait... so you're a slave right now?

 

[Texashiker]

Wait... so you're a slave right now?

We are financially enslaved to the government.

Don't pay your taxes and see how free you are.

 

[Paul98]

We are financially enslaved to the government.

Don't pay your taxes and see how free you are.

Except you are free to move to a different country.

 

[jackstar7]

We are financially enslaved to the government.

Don't pay your taxes and see how free you are.

I'm a consumer. I consume public services (or extrapolate value from them) and then pay for them. If I do not pay, I am stealing, because regardless of my views on the totality of the value of various public spending, I do derive value from it, evidenced by my being able to live as I please with the protection of a massive military (for one example).

There are things I'd like to see improved (clean water for everyone, for one thing), but it's a process and lots of people have opinions on what is of greatest import.

I support those who support my desires and we see how it goes, as you like to say.

At no point am I a slave to the government in any way more than I am a slave to my local grocer, as I need to eat and they won't just let me have what I want.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm a consumer. I consume public services (or extrapolate value from them) and then pay for them.

Sales tax and income tax are 2 different things.

Want to avoid state taxes, just do not buy anything, or do not own property with property tax.

 

[Brainonska511]

Sales tax and income tax are 2 different things.

Want to avoid state taxes, just do not buy anything, or do not own property with property tax.

So....? Same can be said for income tax. Don't have a job or make just enough that you wouldn't have to pay.

 

[Texashiker]

Don't have a job or make just enough that you wouldn't have to pay.

Poverty is not a crime.

If you, your children, and your grandchildren make enough money to tax, you will either pay your part or go to jail.

Personally, I would like to leave my children a better world then the way I found it.

All the taxes we pay in barely covers the interest on the debt. How are we supposed to pay the debt down if the ceiling keeps going up?

 

[Paul98]

Poverty is not a crime.

If you, your children, and your grandchildren make enough money to tax, you will either pay your part or go to jail.

Personally, I would like to leave my children a better world then the way I found it.

All the taxes we pay in barely covers the interest on the debt. How are we supposed to pay the debt down if the ceiling keeps going up?

debt ceiling != debt

 

[Texashiker]

debt ceiling != debt

Ok, so what are we going to do about this debt the government keeps piling on us?

 

[Paul98]

Ok, so what are we going to do about this debt the government keeps piling on us?

Decease spending, increase revenue. It's actually quite simple if you want to lower the deficit.

 

[Texashiker]

Decease spending, increase revenue. It's actually quite simple if you want to lower the deficit.

Do you realize how much money we owe?

Decrease spending, how? Cut welfare and people go hungry. Cut the military and we lose jobs. Nancy girl said there is nothing else to cut.

Increase revenue? Lol, the rich are not going to allow the government to tax them.

What we pay in taxes barely covers the interest of the debt. But every year the government wants to raise the debt ceiling?

How much debt is enough? 50 trillion? 100 trillion? What comes after a trillion? Maybe a zillion?

 

[Wreckem]

Do you realize how much money we owe?

Decrease spending, how? Cut welfare and people go hungry. Cut the military and we lose jobs. Nancy girl said there is nothing else to cut.

Increase revenue? Lol, the rich are not going to allow the government to tax them.

What we pay in taxes barely covers the interest of the debt. But every year the government wants to raise the debt ceiling?

How much debt is enough? 50 trillion? 100 trillion? What comes after a trillion? Maybe a zillion?

Ummm. The US govt brings in around $2.5-2.7trillion a year in tax revenue. We spend about $3.2trillion a year(and that includes the $200-300BILLION for debt servicing). I don't know where you get we cannot afford to pay debt interest. The issue long term is eventually interest rates are going to recover and our interest payments will be higher, but we will still bring in way more revenue than interest payments.

The reality of the matter we can easily increase revenue to $3trillion. And we could cut spending to $2.5trillion. The reality is no one, not even the Republicans, are serious about cutting spending.

 

[Lithium381]

Ummm. The US govt brings in around $2.5-2.7trillion a year in tax revenue. We spend about $3.2trillion a year(and that includes the $200-300BILLION for debt servicing). I don't know where you get we cannot afford to pay debt interest. The issue long term is eventually interest rates are going to recover and our interest payments will be higher, but we will still bring in way more revenue than interest payments.

The reality of the matter we can easily increase revenue to $3trillion. And we could cut spending to $2.5trillion. The reality is no one, not even the Republicans, are serious about cutting spending.

By no one. . i'm assuming you're talking about the players in the two major parties. . . ?


10% of the budget pays for interest on our debt? Well . . . lower the debt and lower the interest payments. Free money! I can't imagine carrying a balance on my VISA or Amex. . .

 

[Texashiker]

Ummm. The US govt brings in around $2.5-2.7trillion a year in tax revenue. We spend about $3.2trillion a year(and that includes the $200-300BILLION for debt servicing). I don't know where you get we cannot afford to pay debt interest. The issue long term is eventually interest rates are going to recover and our interest payments will be higher, but we will still bring in way more revenue than interest payments.

The reality of the matter we can easily increase revenue to $3trillion. And we could cut spending to $2.5trillion. The reality is no one, not even the Republicans, are serious about cutting spending.

We probably could pay off our debt in a few years, as compared to decades, but where is the money supposed to come from?

As soon as interest rates rise, our interest payments on the debt will also go up.

The honest truth is our nation has become addicted to the federal government handing out money. Everything from food stamps, to highway money, money for construction projects, medicaid,,,,.

No elected official is going to stand up and say they are willing to cut money from their district. To do so would be political suicide.

 

[piasabird]

We can start with term limits. 12 years and out.

 

[piasabird]

I wish all Senators had 4 year terms and all representative had 4 year terms and we had a no confidence vote every year to see who we wanted to fire in the government every 12 months. Then make all their terms end at the same time. We could vote them out at any time.

 

[Lithium381]

I wish all Senators had 4 year terms and all representative had 4 year terms and we had a no confidence vote every year to see who we wanted to fire in the government every 12 months. Then make all their terms end at the same time. We could vote them out at any time.

How about the plethora of unelected positions? I'd like to clean those out as well. ..

 

[werepossum]

Do you have a home mortgage? Do yiu think people should be allowed to take loans to start a new business? This is the first time i've heard some one argue against the borrowing of money to make investments for the future.

Here some advice, if you don't want to appear as an absolute idiot, don't make absolutist arguments.

Someone with a home mortgage that increases every year, so that the outstanding balance continually goes up without even any concept of paying it down, much less off, would be the very definition of an absolute idiot. Same with a business loan; if you are continually borrowing more money just to pay the interest on your existing loan and even a delay in the next loan means disaster, you have a failed business.

 

[boomerang]

We can start with term limits. 12 years and out.

Click Article V in my sig.

 

[Jhhnn]

Comparisons of govt debt to household debt are categorically lame.

And no matter how many times that point is made & explained, the usual suspects return to their usual simple minded propaganda induced rant claiming they are the same.

Every "real" dollar currently in existence was created by borrowing, other than a very small amount created many decades ago by converting gold into currency. The amount created is amplified by lending under the principle of fractional reserve banking.

Which leads us to the issue of debt, the other side of lending. What happened during the Ownership Society is that banks were allowed to create too much debt for the money base to support. Once that became apparent when obligations weren't being honored, the whole thing threatened to collapse as investors chose hoarding over investment as a flight to safety. They're still hoarding, and the situation is exacerbated by an enormous balance of payments deficit & by a very large % of national income going to the financial elite, who aren't spending it, either. They never do.

Deficit spending essentially introduces new money into the economy by hiring & by purchase of goods & services.

W/O deficits, the amount of money actually circulating in domestic commerce would drop precipitously, crippling debt servicing abilities. That would, in turn, lead to even more hoarding & loss of liquidity. The only people who really benefit from that are holders of enormous liquidity, who wouldn't mind in the slightest if their money gained value simply by holding it & by stashing even more. Which is why the usual right wing sources have worked so hard to convince their base that balancing the budget is oh so important, to create deflation like we had in the early 1930's. There never was a better time to be rich. Many of the non-rich were broke, busted & begging, making them easy prey. Ridiculous bargains in labor & resources were there for the taking, but only if you had the money up front.

It's not like having your net worth drop from $10B to $5B will affect your lifestyle, particularly when that $5B has much greater purchasing power than the original $10B.

The notion that the govt has to borrow to create money is an anachronism, anyway, a holdover from the gold standard & a sop to the wealthy, who luvs their govt bonds. Short of investing in politicians stupid enough to create deflation, they're the safest investment in the world.

 

[Balt]

Cruz is back to his antics. Even getting called out by his own party:

As Republicans struggled in the House, GOP hard-liners also were blocking progress in the Senate, where most members of both parties were ready to vote late Thursday on a plan to keep the government operating through Nov. 15.

But Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) objected. Although both men voted earlier this week to advance the measure, they argued Thursday that Republicans should now unite to kill it.

That prompted an angry Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to appear in the Senate chamber for a remarkable debate in which he accused Cruz of blocking the late-night vote and delaying it until Friday so he could “turn this into a show” for his supporters from the tea party movement and conservative political organizations, such as Heritage Action for America.

“I’m understanding the reason we’re waiting is that y’all have sent out releases and e-mails and you want everybody to be able to watch,” Corker said. “And that is taking priority over getting legislation back to the House so they can take action before the country’s government shuts down.”

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...905f9e-26e4-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html

He's just a self-serving egotistical douche, like plenty of other people in Congress.

 

[werepossum]

Comparisons of govt debt to household debt are categorically lame.

And no matter how many times that point is made & explained, the usual suspects return to their usual simple minded propaganda induced rant claiming they are the same.

Every "real" dollar currently in existence was created by borrowing, other than a very small amount created many decades ago by converting gold into currency. The amount created is amplified by lending under the principle of fractional reserve banking.

Which leads us to the issue of debt, the other side of lending. What happened during the Ownership Society is that banks were allowed to create too much debt for the money base to support. Once that became apparent when obligations weren't being honored, the whole thing threatened to collapse as investors chose hoarding over investment as a flight to safety. They're still hoarding, and the situation is exacerbated by an enormous balance of payments deficit & by a very large % of national income going to the financial elite, who aren't spending it, either. They never do.

Deficit spending essentially introduces new money into the economy by hiring & by purchase of goods & services.

W/O deficits, the amount of money actually circulating in domestic commerce would drop precipitously, crippling debt servicing abilities. That would, in turn, lead to even more hoarding & loss of liquidity. The only people who really benefit from that are holders of enormous liquidity, who wouldn't mind in the slightest if their money gained value simply by holding it & by stashing even more. Which is why the usual right wing sources have worked so hard to convince their base that balancing the budget is oh so important, to create deflation like we had in the early 1930's. There never was a better time to be rich. Many of the non-rich were broke, busted & begging, making them easy prey. Ridiculous bargains in labor & resources were there for the taking, but only if you had the money up front.

It's not like having your net worth drop from $10B to $5B will affect your lifestyle, particularly when that $5B has much greater purchasing power than the original $10B.

The notion that the govt has to borrow to create money is an anachronism, anyway, a holdover from the gold standard & a sop to the wealthy, who luvs their govt bonds. Short of investing in politicians stupid enough to create deflation, they're the safest investment in the world.

Man, there is so much stupid in this post it could probably bring down the nation of North Korea - which, incidentally, does not allow "hoarding". Every single dollar is NOT created by borrowing; much of it is created from thin air by the Federal Reserve. And there's a very good reason that wiser politicians took the power to print money away from the federal government. Ever heard the term "not worth a Continental"? When government is free to just create money, that money inevitably becomes worthless.

You also have the most stupid view of wealth that is possible for a human capable of typing. Literally the most stupid. Absent a few nutters who keep most or all their wealth in precious metals or gems, that wealth is invested. It is loaned to government, that we may build roads. It is loaned to corporations, that they may create and expand businesses. It is loaned to individuals, that they may buy houses and cars and start businesses. Your understanding of wealth is literally below that gained by watching a Scrooge McDuck cartoon where the wealthy may spend all their time rolling around in piles of dollars, but at least aren't out trying to crash the economy.

On top of that, you have these cartoon rich people longing for the 1930s, an era in which most wealthy people were wiped out and a great many committed suicide because unlike your own cartoonish understanding of wealth, they invested theirs and when the economy collapsed in 1929, many were left penniless. Nearly 10,000 banks failed between 1930 and 1933 alone; are you really so abysmally stupid as to feel those banks were owned by poor people? Tens of thousands of businesses failed, including very large businesses owned by very wealthy families. Families of great wealth became paupers by the score in the 1930s. Two out of every five banks failed, with NO federal insurance backing them up. That money was simply gone. A poor person with seven dollars in a failed bank was broke; a rich person with seven million dollars in a failed bank was broke. The stock market lost 80% of its value, in an era without 401K plans or pensions, where virtually all stock was owned by the wealthy. And this is what you imagine rich people consider a golden age?

For God's sake, get your head out of your ass and stay away from Marxist conspiracy Internet sites. You are literally too freakin' stupid to even serve as a bad example.

 

[Matt1970]

Man, there is so much stupid in this post it could probably bring down the nation of North Korea - which, incidentally, does not allow "hoarding". Every single dollar is NOT created by borrowing; much of it is created from thin air by the Federal Reserve. And there's a very good reason that wiser politicians took the power to print money away from the federal government. Ever heard the term "not worth a Continental"? When government is free to just create money, that money inevitably becomes worthless.

You also have the most stupid view of wealth that is possible for a human capable of typing. Literally the most stupid. Absent a few nutters who keep most or all their wealth in precious metals or gems, that wealth is invested. It is loaned to government, that we may build roads. It is loaned to corporations, that they may create and expand businesses. It is loaned to individuals, that they may buy houses and cars and start businesses. Your understanding of wealth is literally below that gained by watching a Scrooge McDuck cartoon where the wealthy may spend all their time rolling around in piles of dollars, but at least aren't out trying to crash the economy.

On top of that, you have these cartoon rich people longing for the 1930s, an era in which most wealthy people were wiped out and a great many committed suicide because unlike your own cartoonish understanding of wealth, they invested theirs and when the economy collapsed in 1929, many were left penniless. Nearly 10,000 banks failed between 1930 and 1933 alone; are you really so abysmally stupid as to feel those banks were owned by poor people? Tens of thousands of businesses failed, including very large businesses owned by very wealthy families. Families of great wealth became paupers by the score in the 1930s. Two out of every five banks failed, with NO federal insurance backing them up. That money was simply gone. A poor person with seven dollars in a failed bank was broke; a rich person with seven million dollars in a failed bank was broke. The stock market lost 80% of its value, in an era without 401K plans or pensions, where virtually all stock was owned by the wealthy. And this is what you imagine rich people consider a golden age?

For God's sake, get your head out of your ass and stay away from Marxist conspiracy Internet sites. You are literally too freakin' stupid to even serve as a bad example.

The ripping of new ones has begun. At least Phokus goes away for a while after being thoroughly humiliated, Jhhnn will keep blithering away thinking he is the smartest person in the room….

 

[boomerang]

Man, there is so much stupid in this post it could probably bring down the nation of North Korea - which, incidentally, does not allow "hoarding". Every single dollar is NOT created by borrowing; much of it is created from thin air by the Federal Reserve. And there's a very good reason that wiser politicians took the power to print money away from the federal government. Ever heard the term "not worth a Continental"? When government is free to just create money, that money inevitably becomes worthless.

You also have the most stupid view of wealth that is possible for a human capable of typing. Literally the most stupid. Absent a few nutters who keep most or all their wealth in precious metals or gems, that wealth is invested. It is loaned to government, that we may build roads. It is loaned to corporations, that they may create and expand businesses. It is loaned to individuals, that they may buy houses and cars and start businesses. Your understanding of wealth is literally below that gained by watching a Scrooge McDuck cartoon where the wealthy may spend all their time rolling around in piles of dollars, but at least aren't out trying to crash the economy.

On top of that, you have these cartoon rich people longing for the 1930s, an era in which most wealthy people were wiped out and a great many committed suicide because unlike your own cartoonish understanding of wealth, they invested theirs and when the economy collapsed in 1929, many were left penniless. Nearly 10,000 banks failed between 1930 and 1933 alone; are you really so abysmally stupid as to feel those banks were owned by poor people? Tens of thousands of businesses failed, including very large businesses owned by very wealthy families. Families of great wealth became paupers by the score in the 1930s. Two out of every five banks failed, with NO federal insurance backing them up. That money was simply gone. A poor person with seven dollars in a failed bank was broke; a rich person with seven million dollars in a failed bank was broke. The stock market lost 80% of its value, in an era without 401K plans or pensions, where virtually all stock was owned by the wealthy. And this is what you imagine rich people consider a golden age?

For God's sake, get your head out of your ass and stay away from Marxist conspiracy Internet sites. You are literally too freakin' stupid to even serve as a bad example.

Thank you for this post. I wish I could coalesce my thoughts this well so that I might say these things.